Ricky Gervais | Religion VS Atheism, Black and White Stand-up part

Ricky Gervais | Religion VS Atheism, Black and White Stand-up part · Colour TV Talk Show part + dialogue

Ricky Gervais | Religion VS Atheism
Entertainment Infinity | 16.I.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYnjDCZUV6A

Error on my part, you can read it in advance, St Lucy was not martyred at Catania, but at Syracuse. St. Agatha was martyred at Catania, by very enlightened Pagan Romans, one can presume?

I

1:39 three observations:

• earth being flat is not myth, it is false science
• earth being flat is not a stopgap, it is essentially part of Osiris myth (could have been a pre-Flood memory)
• earth being flat was not universally believed up to discovery earth is round.

It was believed by Osiris worshippers, since in their view, the Sun went to the land of the dead under the earth, when it was night.

However, it is easy for that myth to accomodate Round Earth, as long as not too much of it is discovered, just place the land of the dead west of the land of the living, that way the sungod also gets to sea the dead after seeing us.

The default option is actually not having a definite view of the overall shape of the earth. Definite flat earth views come about bc of descriptions that are accurate, leave out roundness as hard to detect, and then are overinterpreted, when you press the descriptions.

But pressing them is about as optional, pre-Eratosthenes and pre-Magellan, as beliving Osiris.

II

2:04 "We know it is fun to tell children"

Santa Claus, fairies, etc.

Since when do "we" know that?

A late nineteenth and early twentieth century acquired a lot of knowledge of paraphernalia of religions it (usually, in England) didn't believe, like St. Nicolas of the Catholics, fairies of the Irish and the Scots and so on. And the Protestant-to-Atheist Englishman, as well as American (though around 1900 the type was rarer in US) found these things fun, and found it fun to tell his children about the fun, and some of them found it fun to tell the children about it and wait to when the children figured out it was (on daddy's or mum's terms) just makebelieve.

And as this figuring out often came early, and as children's brains are like sponges, to some children this experience was a life lesson about scepticism, which they never got over.

This doesn't make it universal knowledge. Norwegian children don't hear all that much of the tooth fairy, I think (if I'm wrong, sorry søte bror!) and Swedish children also don't. And Lucia ... well, both Lucy's and starboys are too much rooted in Christian tradition to remain a cute fun falsehood to every Swedish child. After all, some Christians like Catholics and Orthodox do believe Lucy of Catania was killed for her Christian faith, and all Christians believe St Stephen was killed for it.

III

2:27 Yes, and famously, atheists are often enough born with the right atheist parents to tell them that Hindus are born in India and Muslims in Pakistan and Christians in America ... there are also exceptions.

There are ex-Fundie atheists. And here is an ex-Evolutionist, ex-Heliocentric, ex-Big-Bangist Catholic.

Either way, from a psychological rather then moral standpoint, these would be labelled "converts".

And either way, whether they come from the right or the wrong community, they risk being treated as apostates by it.

... or, by now, as victims of sectarian indoctrination!

IV

2:39 When you say "medieval beliefs" do you refer to beliefs believed in or about the Middle Ages?

And, by the way, so far you haven't defined what they believed in the middle ages, or why it would be wrong (or even just strange) to hold on to it.

Example, in the Middle Ages, certain rules of courtship prevailed and also in the Middle Ages, Chaucer tells how Troilus and Cressida became a couple. Now, that couple did not quite follow the Medieval rules of courtship, so Chaucer added:

"for to win love in sondry ages, there sondry been usages"

Do you think it is strange some hold on to a typically Medieval Belief (as in things believed in the Middle ages) like Cultural relativism?

Perhaps it would be more adequate to sane reason to stick only to one culture, the one taught by the parents, and interpret everyone else's culture according to it, and if someone was so unluckily Medieval as to learn cultural relativism from his parents, let him be an outcast! I don't think so.

V

2:45 Yeah, right.

When was the last time you challenged your belief that:

• there is no God?
• there is no serious reason for anyone to think there is a God?
• there is no Santa Claus (I mean outside the version that is made up for fun)?
• there is no reason to believe in any Saint Nicolas?
• socially embarassing (in your particular culture) has the last word?

VI

2:48 "that's what science does, it doesn't constantly try and prove itself right"

• And when did you last challenge your belief that scientists always live up to that?
• Or your belief that those who don't are found out by competing scientists?
• Or your belief there is never collusion among scientists not to be found out on some point (if for instance a creationist comes up with a good argument)? Do you also believe that free market left to itself never develops any kind of trusts?
• Or that a creationist who really has an argument for God could win the Nobel prize if he proves it, as if Nobel committee in Sweden were not hardline atheists and evolution believers? I mean, knowing Sweden, as I do, you should!

2:58 "it tries to prove itself wrong"

Name three studies where evolution believing scientists tried to prove Creationism was right or even possible, and then they stayed evolution believing scientists because they failed ....

3:24 "it would be the greatest scientific discovery of all time"

It has been made, Eratosthenes-wise by Aristotle, Magellan-wise by Adam, Noah, Moses and a few others since then.

But is your scientific expertise going to tell you openly about Aristotelic philosophy, or Thomistic philosophy, or Biblical history?

I think you show abstinence symptoms after being told the tooth fairy was just for fun, you are being childishly naive!

3:33 text in clip image

"the bible is not evidence, it is not a history book"

Are history books evidence of history?

To my best knowledge, historian analyticists and so on write history books, summaries about historic events with their filter on them, from historic sources.

Now, unlike the item "history book", it's a bit less easy to dismiss the Bible being a historic source, like, for instance, Anglo-Saxon chronicle.

3:39 Present history books are written by people sharing your bias about the supernatural. But apart from that bias, precisely history - historic sources, not modern history books - are very good evidence for the miraculous.

Tacitus and Anglo-Saxon chronicle also deal in it, not just the Bible.

And before you dismiss scientific side of evidence, take a look at medical doctors' commission in Lourdes.

VII

4:24 I am not the least agnostic about Santa Claus.

I am very sure he slapped the heretic Arius at Council of Nicaea, I am very sure he had been in prison for confessing Christ previous to Ponte Milvio, and also very sure (this is where the meme comes from) he once threw in bags of money to a poor household just in time to save the daughters from prostitution.

I am also sure the correct pronunciation is Saint Nicolas.